"Nurses play a vital role in improving the safety and quality of patient car -- not only in the hospital or ambulatory treatment facility, but also of community-based care and the care performed by family members. Nurses need know what proven techniques and interventions they can use to enhance patient outcomes. To address this need, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), with additional funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, has prepared this comprehensive, 1,400-page, handbook for nurses on patient safety and quality -- Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. (AHRQ Publication No. 08-0043)." - online AHRQ blurb, http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nurseshdbk/
This open access book aims to provide a comprehensive but practical overview of the knowledge required for the assessment and management of the older adult with or at risk of fragility fracture. It considers this from the perspectives of all of the settings in which this group of patients receive nursing care. Globally, a fragility fracture is estimated to occur every 3 seconds. This amounts to 25 000 fractures per day or 9 million per year. The financial costs are reported to be: 32 billion EUR per year in Europe and 20 billon USD in the United States. As the population of China ages, the cost of hip fracture care there is likely to reach 1.25 billion USD by 2020 and 265 billion by 2050 (International Osteoporosis Foundation 2016). Consequently, the need for nursing for patients with fragility fracture across the world is immense. Fragility fracture is one of the foremost challenges for health care providers, and the impact of each one of those expected 9 million hip fractures is significant pain, disability, reduced quality of life, loss of independence and decreased life expectancy. There is a need for coordinated, multi-disciplinary models of care for secondary fracture prevention based on the increasing evidence that such models make a difference. There is also a need to promote and facilitate high quality, evidence-based effective care to those who suffer a fragility fracture with a focus on the best outcomes for recovery, rehabilitation and secondary prevention of further fracture. The care community has to understand better the experience of fragility fracture from the perspective of the patient so that direct improvements in care can be based on the perspectives of the users. This book supports these needs by providing a comprehensive approach to nursing practice in fragility fracture care.
Pressure ulcers are defined by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) as “localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction.” A number of risk factors are associated with increased risk of pressure ulcer development, including older age, black race, lower body weight, physical or cognitive impairment, poor nutritional status, incontinence, and specific medical comorbidities that affect circulation such as diabetes or peripheral vascular disease. Pressure ulcers are often associated with pain and can contribute to decreased function or lead to complications such as infection. In some cases, pressure ulcers may be difficult to successfully treat despite surgical and other invasive treatments. In the inpatient setting, pressure ulcers are associated with increased length of hospitalization and delayed return to function. In addition, the presence of pressure ulcers is associated with poorer general prognosis and may contribute to mortality risk. Recommended prevention strategies for pressure ulcers generally involve use of risk assessment tools to identify people at higher risk for developing ulcers in conjunction with interventions for preventing ulcers. A variety of diverse interventions are available for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Categories of preventive interventions include support surfaces (including mattresses, integrated bed systems, overlays, and cushions), repositioning, skin care (including lotions, dressings, and management of incontinence), and nutritional support. Each of these broad categories encompasses a variety of interventions. The purpose of this report is to review the comparative clinical utility and diagnostic accuracy of risk-assessment instruments for evaluating risk of pressure ulcers and to evaluate the benefits and harms of preventive interventions for pressure ulcers in different settings and patient populations. The following Key Questions are the focus of this report: KQ1. For adults in various settings, is the use of any risk-assessment tool effective in reducing the incidence or severity of pressure ulcers compared with other risk-assessment tools, clinical judgment alone, and/or usual care? KQ1a. Do the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of risk-assessment tools differ according to setting? KeQ1b. Do the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of risk-assessment tools differ according to patient characteristics and other known risk factors for pressure ulcers, such as nutritional status or incontinence? KQ2. How do various risk-assessment tools compare with one another in their ability to predict the incidence of pressure ulcers? KQ2a. Does the predictive validity of various risk-assessment tools differ according to setting? KQ2b. Does the predictive validity of various risk-assessment tools differ according to patient characteristics? KQ3. In patients at increased risk of developing pressure ulcers, what are the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions in reducing the incidence or severity of pressure ulcers? KQ3a. Do the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions differ according to risk level as determined by different risk-assessment methods and/or by particular risk factors? KQ3b. Do the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions differ according to setting? KQ3c. Do the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions differ according to patient characteristics? KQ4. What are the harms of interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers? KQ4a. Do the harms of preventive interventions differ according to the type of intervention? KQ4b. Do the harms of preventive interventions differ according to setting? KQ4c. Do the harms of preventive interventions differ according to patient characteristics?
Presents both current and future aspects of diagnosis and treatment. Presents evidence-based knowledge of pressure ulcer aetiology. Contains over 90 illustrations. Explores the possiblities of tissue repair using new tissue engineering strategies.
This Clinical Practice Guideline presents recommendations and summarizes the supporting evidence for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. The first edition was developed as a four year collaboration between the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) and the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP). In this second edition of the guideline, the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance (PPPIA) has joined the NPUAP and EPUAP. This edition of the guideline has been developed over a two year period to provide an updated review of the research literature, extend the scope of the guideline and produce recommendations that reflect the most recent evidence. It provides a detailed analysis and discussion of available research, critical evaluation of the assumptions and knowledge in the field, recommendations for clinical practice, a description of the methodology used to develop the guideline and acknowledgements of the 113 experts formally involved in the development process.
Only comprehensive reference book on pressure ulcers and their management Only book in its field endorsed by the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the leading European authority on pressure ulcers
